ELECTRONIKA vs ORSON SALES LTD

THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 6.12.90 by which all the opposite parties have been directed to pay Rs. 18,488/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from 8.10.88 till the date of payment, to the complainant.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant (respondent No. 3) purchased a VCP for Rs. 10,500/- from M/s. Electronika, opposite party No. 3 appellant. Opposite Party No. 1, M/s. Orson Electronics Ltd. is the manufacturer of the VCP and Opposite Party No. 2 respondent No. 1 is the selling agent of the respondent No. 1. The VCP went out of order within the warranty period. The complainant handed over the VCP for repair to the opposite party No. 2 which was not returned after repair. The complainant filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 10,400/- alongwith interest against the opposite parties.

The complaint was contested by the opposite parties The learned District Forum passed the decree against all the opposite parties as stated above. M/s. Electronika, opposite party No. 3 has come up in appeal against the said order to this Commission.

DURING the pendency of the appeal the Counsel for the appellant made a statement before us on 15-2-91 that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the appeal i.e. opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 in the complaint were the same person and consequently he gave up opposite party No. 1 as a party. His name was ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondents vide our order of even date and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were numbered and respondent Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the VCP was given by Sh. Ishwar Singh, complainant for repair to M/s. Orson Sales Limited, respondent No. 1 & not to the appellant and that the same was not returned by them to him. He further submits that consequently it is not he but respondent No. 1, who was liable to pay the price of the VCP.

WE have duly considered the argument and find substance therein. It is not disputed that the VCP was given for repair by the complainant to respondent No. 1 and not to the appellant. Therefore, if the VCP has not been returned after repair it is respondent No. 1 which is liable to reimburse the complainant. Consequently we accept the appeal, modify the order of the District Forum and held that respondent No. 1 M/s. Orson Sales Ltd. is liable to pay the decretal amount. The cheque of the decretal amount deposited by the appellant in the District Forum be returned to him. No order as to costs. Appeal accepted.